Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'michael jackson'.
May 1, 2005 Troy Tolley, Channel MICHAEL SPEAKS – Open Floor [M Entity] Hello to all of you. We are here. [freyaisissuz] Michael has said in the past that in the teacher-student relationship we may learn from them and they learn from us. That indicates to me an evolving teaching. Do they still say that is true, and in what ways are we learning from each other today? How are we All doing? [M Entity] Of course we remain learning from you as much as you learn from us. There has come to be known many, many universal truths, routines, patterns, and repetitions that we can easily teach to all of you, but there are always “new” ways to experience life. We will not experience life through a body as you may experience that in your current time frame. We have learned and comprehended a great deal about the Physical Plane, but several of those fragments who have come to be known as our “students” have contributed to our own evolution of understanding the nuances of life on the Physical Plane. For while we are made up of 1050 Essences with an excess of 200,000 lifetimes of experience, there are far more of you collecting data within current times and through different “eyes.” In answer to “how you are all doing,” we would have to say that only you can determine the answer to that question, for we have no investment in a standard against which to measure your lives. [freyaisissuz] Of course that is true ;-), yet in terms of the ‘evolution’ of the teachings? [M Entity] We would say that most of those who claim to be our students have simply found a rest stop and remain stagnant in the comforts of the basic knowledge. Very few of our students actively implement the knowledge we impart. This is not to say that we “mind,” for we do not. We do not impart this information with an expectation. However, for purposes of response to your question, it is valid that few “use” this teaching. As long as there are divisions among those who work with our teaching, we can safely state that there are many who have “missed the point.” “Missing the point,” though, is a valid path of learning and experiencing, and for those fragments who choose that path, other areas of life are the priority. In those instances, it would do those fragments well to consciously acknowledge their true, primary philosophy, so transformation can begin, if they choose. Our teaching runs counter to politics and competition, though its terminology and construct can certainly be used in any arena of life for any purpose, even if counter to the intention. This is not unusual among humans on the path. [freyaisissuz] Point well taken, thank you for that clarification Michael. [M Entity] Many will cloak their true, primary philosophy with the terminology of a more peaceful philosophy, giving room for self-justification and permission for unconscious motives. This is why we suggest identifying the true, primary philosophy, first, if one is truly interested in implementing the philosophy of our own teaching. As with most teachings, the truth can be summed up in a phrase or word, and since ours can be summed up in the phrase “you are here to learn how to choose, and to choose how to learn,” we would say that those who are more concerned with the choices of others, while losing sight of their own, might be “missing the point.” Understanding the motivations, experiences, feelings, reactions, interpretations, within your own ability to choose, is where you will find the most use for our teaching. If that is your choice. We will add something to our response, then. When we refer to your “primary philosophy,” we are referring to two things: Your Attitude and the Structure through which you gather your experiences, such as a teaching, imprinting, cultural biases, etc. Many of our students are greatly influenced by the Young Soul philosophies of your current world, yet are quite unaware of this. In gaining that awareness of influence, the intended philosophies could find stability. When one is using an unconscious philosophy that is counter to the “peaceful, cloaking terminology” of another philosophy, one is in the Negative Pole of the Attitude. [sandt1222] Does that mean there is anything we can or should do to ease tension in the community? [M Entity] The tension among what you call “the community” is merely a reflection of the tension being addressed within each of our students. We do not say this as a new age cliché. Most of our students navigate the Physical Plane through a maze of Young Soul obstacles, battling the want to exclude oneself from “it all,” while wanting desperately to be a part of the game. This is reflected in your community. The division and contention within your “community” is the result of a Young Soul paradigm superimposed over a community of Older Souls who seek nothing beyond that which they have become acclimated… yet. [sandt1222] All these divisions can be physically painful. It does not seem that it “should” be this way. [M Entity] The divisions among your community are based on the very concepts of “individuality” and “specialness,” which are Young Soul philosophies. An insidious fear among many Older Souls who live in your Young Soul paradigm is that they are “not special.” You will find many Older Souls, particularly Mature Souls, among our teaching and among other progressive philosophies, grasping at terms and definitions as a means to desperately capture an image of their specialness. This is a result of Young Soul imprinting from your world, which says that you must prove your “uniqueness” or find some means to stand apart. Many use the Roles and Overleaves and Soul Ages as a means to define these feelings of specialness. Others use Past Life scenarios to compensate for the lack of feeling special. We will clarify that UNIQUENESS is quite different from SPECIALNESS. Uniqueness is what you ALREADY ARE. Specialness is what you THINK YOU SHOULD BE. Uniqueness stands on its own. Specialness requires constant feedback. Many do not care about their uniqueness, and struggle desperately for what could make them special. It could easily be said, then, that the paradigm of Special vs. Not Special (a young soul philosophy) is the root of your community's division. When your community begins to understand the Uniqueness among all of the groups of study, then your community will have implemented an Older Soul philosophy, and our teachings may have more meaning. [Tibtyc] Greetings, Michael. Where do you stand on the subject of copyright? I would like to write about you, or rather the ideas coming from you. This would probably mean quoting from different channels, but the prospect of doing that is kind of scary, from the viewpoint of copyright… Any advice? That was my question. [M Entity] When you are working with material from the physical plane, however inspired from non-physical sources, the question of ownership and copyright is valid. It is quite within the rights of any fragment to quote another. There are very few restrictions upon that freedom. As to where we “stand,” we have nothing to gain or lose by your efforts. We have no cosmic “ATMs” through which we could reap the rewards of the printed word. [Tibtyc] There are unpublished manuscripts, I was partly thinking of those… [M Entity] These manuscripts are not conclusive words trapped by print. The same can come again through any of our valid channels. We are quite available and would remain so for any printed word we wish to impart. [Tibtyc] That brightens the picture… [M Entity] In other words, the concepts can be extracted from the “unpublished manuscripts” and posed to an available channel through which you wish to work with us. We may speak on those same subjects through that channel, allowing for more freedom for public print. [Tibtyc] There are especially beautiful formulations… [M Entity] If you are more concerned with the attachment of the print to the reputations of the fragments who collected it, then we would then have to suggest that your efforts require their participation and permission, for the most part. [Fyredeva11] On another list, someone brought up the question of validity that 2 persons channeled as being in the same entity are ACTUALLY FROM the same entity, given that there must be tens of thousands of cadre groups each with Entity 1/5, for example. I ask this in skepticism of having so many channeled celebrities in our cadre. It seems to fall under the need for “specialness” you just spoke of. [M Entity] It is valid that many fragments channeled as being within the same Cadre and Entity are technically NOT, though the numbers used for convenience are identical. This is especially true of many “celebrities” (historical or current) who are identified as being from among the same Energy Ring as our students. This is simply due to lack of understanding the structure of sentience. Those we call our “students” are wholly limited to a group of 12 Cadres; an Energy Ring. We have approximately 100,000 students. This is not to say that others outside of our Agreements will not become students, but we speak of those with whom we have original. [Fyredeva11] thank you…(I knew Michael Jackson wasn't in my entity!) [M Entity] The confusion as from which Cadre and Entity a fragment comes could be clarified by including the Energy Ring number, but this is still a confusing concept for several of our students and channels. We say this more as a statement of the limitations placed upon the conveyance of the simplicity of the system, rather than as a statement of your ability to understand. For some concepts, our channels are simply limited or uninterested. In other instances, a clear distortion of the system is perpetuated, lending even more confusion to a rather simple construct. While including the Energy Ring number would help in clarifying specific Cadre and Entity, even the count of Energy Rings repeats. This means that an Energy Ring 3, Cadre 7, Entity 4, exists in multiples, as well. To help your understanding of the simple, yet awesome, structure of human sentience, here is how we are cast: 1 Ring = 12 Cadres 12 Rings = 1 Sphere 12 Spheres = 1 Arrangement 12 Arrangements = 1 Composition 12 Compositions = 1 Harmony (up to) 7 Harmonies = 1 Design ALL of a Specific Sentient species we refer to as a “Design.” There are never more than 7 Harmonies in 1 Design. This structure then extends and changes when including other Sentience. One can see why this is confusing to most, not because of complication, but simply by the sheer enormity of the visualization. [Fyredeva11] which one is our energy ring in? [M Entity] Within all of this daunting information, it can safely be said that if you are studying our teaching, you are within the Cadres and Entities of the same Energy Ring, even if that Energy Ring is numbered differently through our different channels. Through this channel, we would call your Ring Number 2, Harmony 1. [Fyredeva11] Artisan flavored? [M Entity] It could be described as so, but this would be quite simplistic, if not explored beyond the assumptions. We are from Energy Ring 1, Cadre 11, Entity 4, Harmony 1. We are part of the same “Sphere” as our students. We are from Sphere 2. The previous Sphere 1 (12 Energy Rings) were part of what has come to be known as “Lemurians” or those less-physically dense, though they were still of “human” consciousness. The mathematical meaning of the numbers referencing your positions is more influential than whether you literally share the same Entity. [Fyredeva11] positions? [M Entity] Your resonance and compatibility among you are difficult to validate in terms of Entity and Cadre accurately. Being “wrong” about whether you are from the same Entity will not slow your progress. Yes, Positions. For instance, a 3rd Entity will still have a specific, mathematical meaning, regardless of its Cadre or Energy Ring. This mathematical meaning can often be the binding force between two fragments who are technically NOT from the same Entity. On the contrary, those technically within the same Entity may find absolutely no resonance during specific lifetimes, especially when interpreted through False Personality. Incidentally, Michael Jackson is in your Entity, Kerrin. Celebrity does not preclude a fragment from being our student. Only Choice can do that. [Annsge] So Michael J could have been a Michael student. [M Entity] Michael Jackson has been exposed to our teaching. The Personality known as Michael Jackson has chosen to abdicate Agreements with us for this lifetime, but this does not alter anything for his Essence. [Annsge] According to some in the Michael community, Jackson was Mozart. [M Entity] It often a mistake to assume that similarities between a past personality and those of a current personality validates a reincarnation. It is more often the case that a fragment creates a spectrum of personalities across a theme, rather than recreating the same for the convenience of recognition. [Fyredeva11] it just seems odd that if there are, say, a few hundred souls incarnate from an entity- that they would be so far removed [M Entity] Kerrin, in what way do you use the words “so far removed?” [Fyredeva11] I mean in so “different” a world. I guess Hollywood seems like a different world, in a sense. [M Entity] We remind you that our students, even among “your world,” are quite unique among themselves and often cannot relate. [Annsge] Does the 7th Internal Monad always mean physical death? [M Entity] No, but only rarely. Those who transit a Soul Age within one lifetime will go through a psychological “death” of sorts, and during the process, despite being alive, the 7th Internal Monad would apply. By extension, a new “Birth” would also result. However, in these rare cases of Soul Age transition within a lifetime, there is also an overall “arc” of the 7 Internal Monads that remain within the context of physical aging. The 7th Internal Monad is almost always a physical death and how that death's impact is processed by the fragment and his remaining family and friends. This Internal Monad, as we said, can also be WITHOUT a physical death, but through a major, pivotal, transitional, transformation in the psychological makeup of a fragment shifting in Soul Age within a lifetime. [Tibtyc] Could you clarify “arc”? [M Entity] Physical Birth to Physical Death could be described as “the Arc of Internal Monads.” Psychological Birth to Psychological Death could be described then as a “Cycle of Internal Monads.” A Cycle is all that is necessary to be completed in the process of moving from one Soul Age or Level to another, so for many Older Souls, physical death is not necessary to begin the new perceptions. This process is not popular. Most fragments choose to reflect from outside of the lifetime, in review, rather than to implement such high awareness from within the demands of Physicality. [Tibtyc] This would be a review within a lifetime, of that lifetime? [M Entity] Yes. Review is always necessary in the process of creating a new cycle of Internal Monads. This process can be quite demanding and challenging while within the lifetime. Once a Soul Age or Level has been transited within a lifetime, it will usually take the next 7 months for Review, and the next 7 years for implementation of the new perception. [slacnj] By my accounting there are 21 extra fragments in your entity. You said there are wild cards, one time, but I wasn't sure if you wanted this information to come out now to explain the difference. I jokingly also speculated that some people have aisle seats and some have window seats. [M Entity] A “Wild Card” is a fragment who “straddles” two casting positions. When a Cadence in “incomplete,” those fragments at the beginning of the following Cadence will then “fill two positions.” slacnj: so you can be in more than one cadence at a time? [M Entity] Yes. Our channels envision this “wild card” scenario quite differently among them, with some visualizing a more condensed perfection of an Entity structure, with wild cards being “stragglers hanging on” from the “edges.” Asymmetry is required of an Entity for it have “wild cards.” However, that same asymmetry is no longer in effect, ultimately BECAUSE of the “wild cards” fulfilling the positions required for symmetry. [slacnj] but 1050 is 21 more than 3 times 343 [slacnj] you have 3 extra cadences [M Entity] While an Entity of 1029 is the most common symmetrical configuration, 1050 is not asymmetrical. We do not have any “wildcards.” If an Entity's count is divisible by 7, there are no “wild cards.” It is not in the “extra” cadences that asymmetry is created, but in the incompletion of a single Cadence. If positions 5, 6, 7 are “empty” in a final Cadence of Sages, then the positions of 1, 2, 3, of the following Cadence of Artisans (for example) will fulfill 5, 6, 7 consecutively. This “straddling” creates a fragment who is at once intensely unstable, while inherently being one of the most stabilizing forces known, as well. How that “wildness” is exhibited is determined by the choice of the Essence and its current Personality. [slacnj] everyone wants to be special here [M Entity] Your humor is not lost on us. [freyaisissuz] unique at least [M Entity] We know of no one more unique than each of you. The spectrum of the beauty among you is as valid as the patterns we perceive in planes even beyond our own. Good night to all of you. We will conclude here.
[Excerpt from Michael Speaks: May 2005] [After Kerrin expressed disbelief that Michael Jackson could be from her entity: C1E5] [M Entity] Incidentally, Michael Jackson is in your Entity, Kerrin. Celebrity does not preclude a fragment from being our student. Only Choice can do that. [Annsge] So Michael J could have been a Michael student. [M Entity] Michael Jackson has been exposed to our teaching. The Personality known as Michael Jackson has chosen to abdicate Agreements with us for this lifetime, but this does not alter anything for his Essence. [Annsge] According to some in the Michael community, Jackson was Mozart. [M Entity] It often a mistake to assume that similarities between a past personality and those of a current personality validates a reincarnation. It is more often the case that a fragment creates a spectrum of personalities across a theme, rather than recreating the same for the convenience of recognition.